complete_judgment

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. Discloses that receipt is re-signed with Ed25519 and linked via parent_receipt_id, and returns certain fields. However, does not fully describe side effects or whether the operation is final/immutable.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Description is four sentences, with first sentence stating purpose, followed by details of what it records, a technical detail, and usage instruction. It is concise and front-loaded, though could be slightly tighter.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema, but description explains returns (judgment receipt ID, verdict, score, chain ID). Covers technical detail (Ed25519 signing, parent_receipt_id). Explains that it finalizes a pending receipt. Lacks error conditions or idempotency but sufficient for a workflow completion tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. Description mentions parameters (verdict, score, criteria, confidence) but does not add significant detail beyond schema. The description adds process context (finalize, re-sign) but not new parameter semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it submits evaluation results to finalize a pending judgment receipt, with specific verb 'complete_judgment' and resource. It distinguishes from sibling judge_receipt by mentioning 'finalize a pending judgment receipt created by judge_receipt' and 'Use immediately after evaluating the prompt returned by judge_receipt'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says 'Use immediately after evaluating the prompt returned by judge_receipt', indicating the correct usage context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use, but the context of pending receipt implies a specific workflow step.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.